Media Analysis Presentation

docx

School

Simon Fraser University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

329

Subject

History

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorMusic12489

Key Facts And now for some key facts and information surrounding the Crimean Bridge and the explosion on it. Firstly, the bridge itself was inaugurated by Vladimir Putin personally in 2018 following its construction, and was celebrated as an event and symbol of Russian monopoly and control over the illegally annexed Crimea, a statement against Ukraine's ownership over the peninsula. Interestingly, the bridge was destroyed the day after Putin’s birthday which hints at tactics of aggravation used by the perpetrators, assumingly affiliated with Ukraine. Despite the ongoing conflict, Moscow assured its Russian citizens and ethno-Russians living in Crimea that the bridge was safe to use. The explosion follows weeks of Ukrainian victories, including multiple territorial gains of areas formerly occupied by Russia that were illegally annexed by Moscow. Media Statements We wanted to take a look at either state's responses to the situation conveyed in media, as it provides context as to how either side perceives the incident. Following the event, Ukraine’s state officials had many responses, often reacting very jubilantly to the event. Ukrainian officials appear to be almost celebrating the event, indicating their motives. Examples of these reactions are seen with Ukraine's secretary of national security and defense, who ironically and mockingly wished Putin happy birthday via a

singing video of marylin monroe, split with a video of the bridge ablaze. The head of office of Ukraine’s presidency referenced Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea, posting again in a tweet that “everything occupied by Russia must be expelled” as a heading for the image of the burning bridge. Finally, Ukrainian parliament tweeted their response to the event saying “@Crimea, long time no see.” In regards to the Russian response, Kremlin supporters urged Putin and government executives to retaliate using the Ukrainian tactics: “Nothing is impossible, the Ukrainians show us.” The Russian Foreign minister stated in an address that this event displays Kyiv’s regime as “terrorist” in nature. Russian Article Summary Our second article we will be taking a look at is a Russian independent source, from The Moscow Times. This article highlights that Russian reporters stated a deliberate truck bomb exploded and destroyed a portion of the Crimean Bridge. The article reports that according to Russian authorities, three people were killed in the event, who were travelers on the bridge. The article notes that the Kremlin pledged to find the bombers, but did not accuse Ukraine outright in primary statement. (This appears to be before Ukraine's responses). The blast itself ignited seven oil tankers connected by train and broke two car lanes of the bridge road. Russia’s investigative committee, described as “powerful” by the article, were on the scene of the crime, opening a criminal investigation and began to trace the trucks documentation as well as other important information. Critical Analysis When critically analyzing this article, a strength can be devised from the articles ability to remain rather neutral when describing the event itself, avoiding labeling it an attack by Ukraine. Language such as “Ukrainian

Terrorism” and “Attack” is not overtly used to describe the event, which lends the article more credibility. Another strength of the Article is that it is semi-critical of the Russian response to the event, describing Russia’s calm and reassuring response to its citizens as quote “Downplaying” the true nature of the situation. Weaknesses of this article include the promotion of Russian military and authority structure, in which Russia’s investigative committee is labeled as “powerful,” and also contains a section dedicated to Russian military gains at the end of the article, which is a sizable section, without containing Ukrainian ones. Next, this article lacks clarity and description of sources, often not directly quoting statements from State officials and representatives, and is quite vague about the sources of information. Example on slide Western Washington Post The next article chosen is a western article from the Washington post. This article describes the explosion as “ripping” across the crimean bridge, the strategic link between Russia's mainland and Crimea. The article explains in depth the significance of the bridge, being the rail and road connection between Russia and Crimea, a source of transport for resources, military equipment, and a port of entry for troops into crimea. It is described as the means by which Russia militarizes Crimea. Russia’s “top law enforcement body” reported that a truck explosion ignited fuel tankers on a train that was crossing. There was limited traffic availability after the event that resumed, and Russia did not give a timeline for repair. Investigation is reportedly underway, as the truck driver has been identified as a Resident of Russia’s Krasnodar region, and the route and documentation of the truck is being studied. Critical analysis

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The strengths of this article show in its ability to give a well rounded amount of context of the current state in the Ukraine-Russia conflict leading up to the event, noting Ukraine’s multiple victories in reclaiming formerly occupied territory, as well as Ukraine’s military promising to attack the bridge back in June. The strengths of the article also show in its ability to provide ample information regarding the responses of either state, citing many of Ukraine’s and Russia’s addresses and media comments and responses following the event, which were mentioned previously in the presentation. Not only are the comments quoted by the individuals, but sources are given. The article is weakened by its apparent biases to Ukraine efforts, particularly when explaining events. For example, this is shown when the article highlights the previous victories by Ukraine before the bridge explosion, notably calling Ukrainian attacks “daring” in nature, and claiming that if the bridge attack is indeed directly a Ukrainian plot, it would be their most “stunning strike yet.” Secondly, the article is very long, and would benefit from use of headings and organization of specific events to the statements and responses of either State to the issue, as without this, it bounces from topic to topic rather abruptly and can be hard to follow for the reader. Comparisons differences 3 and 4 In comparing the articles, the Washington Post does the most in-depth job at explaining and contextualizing the current dimensions of the conflict leading up to this event, as mentioned prior citing Ukraines intentions to attack the bridge back in June, explaining the recent victories of Ukraine, and citing many official responses to the actual event. For another comparison, between the Russian and western articles, is that the Russian article has a distinct section highlighting the gains of the Russian state in the ongoing conflict, particularly the “liberation” of

Otradovka, Veselaya Dolina and Zaitsevo by Donetsk separatists and Russian military backup, something that is not done in the other articles. In contrast, the Washington post spends a large portion of the article explaining Ukraine’s ability to reclaim lost territory that was illegally annexed.